I read with great interest the article by Ariagno et al . It was
clearly pointed out that despite the intense focus on academic track most
of the fellows go for the private or clinical practice. This is basically
because of the existing double standard in research training requirement.
Although the ABP has launched new subspecialty requirement from July 2004
with more stress on research, there still remain a wide range of
accomplishment criteria for the fellows. Most of the mentored research in
clinical settings are done with the purpose of fufilling the certfication
requirement.
Fellowship programs supported by federal fundings relatively have an
edge over clinically based programs. Thus the same research standards may
not apply.For that reason ABP has accomdated a wide range of research
accomplishment.In light of the report of Ariagno et al I would suggest
that if the ABP wish to encourage real academic fellows, this wide range
for accomplishment should be narrowed. In present dossier of ABP, a full
length article accepted for publication is treated almost the same as a
'work report' which unfortunately in most of the circumstances never go
through a full write up or publication. To promote academic thinking among
the fellows a clear statement should be made regarding their post
certfication research achievements. A minimum of one paper per year should
be included in the maintanence of certfication requirement and should be
made mandatory for recertification. This strategy will seive out the
academically oriented neonatologist.
![[Read P3R]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Double standard in neonatal research training
P3Rs: